Economically integrated voters give their verdict
I think a little differently on why it was not a clean sweep by the BJP in both Maharashtra and Haryana as predicted by many exit polls. Demonetisation and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) have formalised a large section of the economy. Now, there is a minimum threshold quantum for an economically integrated voter. That number in India currently touches 10%. These are the voters who, in one way or the other, have been affected by the tax system. These are the voters who are immediately susceptible to the vagaries of the economic system. These voters take money from formal sectors such as banks, pay
taxes and are governed by the rules of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
There is now a new paradigm where a minimum threshold of voters has been arrived at. They are a part of the formal economy. Therefore, economic ups and downs will immediately reflect in their moods. This has been reflected in the abnormally high percentage of votes to the None of The Above (NOTA) option in urban areas, especially in Mumbai. Another way in which this economically integrated voter has shown dissent is through abstentions.
These have been more pronounced in the urban areas of Maharashtra, especially Mumbai, which are considered strongholds of the BJP. This manifested itself in the abnormally low turnout in the urban areas of both the poll-bound states. This formalisation and the mechanism of dissent have contributed to the surprises that have sprung up in both the states.
In Maharashtra, the results show that Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) supremo Sharad Pawar has a sound understanding of how economics on the ground is related to politics. Hence, his party stands as the biggest gainer in the elections. The message that the BJP can draw from the results is also clear. The saffron party can no longer ignore its trader base. This section of voters has been voicing concerns long before demonetisation. Now their demands cannot be ignored as it seems that the core voter seems to be baulking.
The message is similar from Haryana, which has a fairly urban economy. Among the northern states, Punjab and Haryana represent an urban and industrial economy. This type of economically sensitive voters earlier used to be around 4-5%. But with their numbers going up, the BJP cannot ignore them. It is important that the party now introspects and starts working towards getting them back into its fold.
Also in Haryana, the BJP has gained the tag of being an anti-Jat party. This was clearly seen as Haryana Finance Minister Captain Abhimanyu, who is a Jat, lost his seat. This is probably the first time that social engineering done by the saffron party has backfired. This is contrary to the theory and belief that social engineering is generally done to bring about a balance in the voter support.
Like the NCP in Maharashtra, the Jannayak Janta Party (JJP) and Dushyant Chautala have emerged as the biggest winners in Haryana. Though Chautala has come out in the open and said that he is neither the king nor the kingmaker, deep within he must have known that his party could very well decide the fate of the Haryana polls.Also, he must not repeat the mistake committed by Kuldeep Bishnoi and his breakaway Haryana Janhit Congress (HJC). Bishnoi refused to be the deputy chief minister when he was offered the post and he ultimately had to merge his party with the Congress.
It is the right time for Dushyant to play his cards. His dramatic rise after the drubbing in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections is also a sign that the Jats are firmly against the saffron party. It is their support for the JJP coupled with the fact that some of them swayed towards the Congress that led to the close fight in Haryana.
Interestingly, the other biggest loser is the party from which the JJP broke off, the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD). One look at the vote shares is enough to tell the story. The vote shares of the BJP, Congress and JJP have risen at the cost of the INLD, whose slice of the pie has dropped dramatically. The INLD has barely managed to open its account.
With regard to the Congress, the party now needs to put an effective leader in place to take advantage of the situation. It could have mobilised better. For example, in Maharashtra, had the party got its act together and prevented defections, it could have won 20 more seats. In Haryana too, a string of defections and instances of infighting have taken a toll on the party’s tally. The public rift between former Haryana Congress chief Ashok Tanwar and former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda did not do good for the party’s image in the voter’s mind.
What the Congress now needs to do is elect a leadership that has the resources to manage regional satraps and also has the charisma to rally opposition voters. If the party had a leader with these qualities, the Congress could have won the day both in Maharashtra and Haryana.